POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, SIR: In answer to your communication of the 2d instant, enclosing the memorial of John Frink, and asking for such information as "may be material to the action of the committee," I have the honor to inform you that the memorialist was contractor on ninety-three different mail routes in Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri, from July 1, 1850, to June 30, 1854, at an aggregate annual compensation of $116,087, amounting in the contract term to $464,348, and that the fines and deductions during the same period, for failures to comply with contract stipulations, amount to $9,742. Those fines, ranging from twenty-five cents to fifty dollars, were imposed, according to the regulations of this department, on evidence furnished by postmasters and other agents of the government, showing delinquencies on the part of the contractor in the transportation of the mails, for which delinquencies no explanations satisfactory to the Postmaster General had been offered. The papers, showing the specific reasons for the action of the department in each particular case, are very voluminous, and the labor of copying them would employ the entire clerical force of the department for several days. It is hoped that the information above communicated will be sufficient for the purposes of the committee. Agreeably to your request, the memorial of Mr. Frink is herewith returned. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. D. L. YULEE, AARON V. BROWN, Chairman Committee on Post Offices, &c., U. S. Senate. . COM 233 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 6, 1858.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. BIGLER submitted the following REPORT. The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the petition of the president and stockholders of "the Florida Steam-packet Company," Veg leave to report: The memorialists are the owners of the steamer " Carolina," plying between Charleston, South Carolina, and Pilatka, on the St. John's river, Florida, touching at the intermediate ports and landings. They allege that said steamer was unlawfully seized by James G. Dell, the collector of customs at the port of Jacksonville, on the 21st day of May, 1857, and detained for a period of twenty-eight days, to the serious damage of the interests of the owners; and they ask Congress to make reasonable remuneration to them for the loss so imposed, which loss they estimate at $8,000. This controversy has arisen out of the administration of the 9th and 10th sections of the law of 1807 "to prohibit the importation of slaves," &c. These sections have sole reference to the transportation of slaves coastwise, from one port to another, within the jurisdiction of the United States; the main points in the case being whether the master of a vessel shipping slaves at one port in the United States consigned to another was bound to exhibit the manifest and permit at intermediate points, or whether a simple report of the presence and destiny of the vessel was sufficient; and whether the law of 1807 should be construed to apply to the casual transportation of slaves from one port to another within the same State, though in different collection districts. There seems to be, happily, in this controversy, no material difference on points of fact. It is not denied that the steamer was seized and detained, as alleged, nor is there any essential discrepancy in the history of the affair on important points, as presented by the memorialists on the one side, and the government officers on the other. The inquiry is, therefore, readily reduced to the real points at issue, while much of the correspondence presented by the petitioners, being wholly immaterial, need not be noticed. The only important questions that arise in the examination of the case are these: First. Had the collector at Jacksonville a legal and proper right, on the state of facts presented, to so seize and detain the said steamer? Second. Did the master of said steamer disregard or violate the law, as charged; and if so, was such disregard or violation wilful and deliberate, or was the act unwitting error, superinduced by opinions previously expressed by officers of the government as to what the law required at his hands? As to the first of these propositions, if the letter of the law is to be observed, then there would seem to be an end of the controversy. The master was bound to present his papers to the collector at Jacksonville whenever and as often as the steamer appeared in that port with slaves on board shipped from Charleston, or any other point out of the State of Florida, destined for that or any other port in said State, or with slaves shipped from Pilatka to Charleston or Fernandina; and that any neglect or refusal to do so rendered the vessel liable to the penalties prescribed in the law. These views, it will be seen, are in accordance with those of the Secretary of the Treasury, who, on the 9th day of June last, whilst holding that, under "the circumstances," the steamer should be released, decided that she had been "rightfully seized." The following correspondence between James G. Dell, their collector at Jacksonville, Florida, and the reply of the Secretary of the Treasury, presents a full and explicit view of the facts and the law of the case: DISTRICT OF ST. JOHN'S, Port of Jacksonville, June 4, 1857. SIR: It becomes my duty, as collector of this port, to inform you that on the evening of the 21st of May, 1857, I seized the steamship Carolina, Thomas Surtis master, for violation of the 9th and 10th sections of the revenue law approved March 2, 1807. Said steamer performs weekly voyages from the port of Charleston, South Carolina, to Pilatka, "in this district." The following are specifications of violations for which said seizure was made: The collector of this district ascertained, upon reliable authority, that on the 8th day of May, 1857, said steamer received on board in this district a slave, and transported the same to the port of Charleston, South Carolina, without producing a manifest, and clearing said slave from this port, as required by law. On the return of said steamer, the collector required the master to produce the manifest, and informed him that in future he must clear all slaves transported from this district, and produce a manifest and obtain a permit for the landing of all slaves brought into this district, under penalty of the law. On the 13th of May, her next trip, "notwithstanding the positive order of the collector of this port, at the same time informing said master of the steamship Carolina what would be the consequence of a further violation of the requirements of the collector, should he attempt to evade or violate the revenue laws," said steamer took on board at the port of Charleston aforesaid a slave or slaves, and landed the same at Pilatka, "in this district," without producing to the collector of this port the evidence required by said act of their having been cleared at the port of Charleston, and landed the same without obtaining a permit so to do. On arrival of said steamer at this port, on the 13th day of May, the collector endeavored to ascertain if there were any slaves on board of said steamer; and not being able to get any information from the officers of the steamer, the collector deemed it advisable to place an inspecto. on board to proceed with her to Pilatka, and called on Captain Surtis and informed him he wished to put an officer on board his steamer. Said officer was then taken on board. On her return to this port from Pilatka, said inspector reported one slave landed at Pilatka from on board said steamer, "said slave having been taken on board said steamer at the port of Charleston, South Carolina;" in my opinion, showing a wilful determination on the part of the captain of said steamer not to comply with the law, as per my instructions to him, and construction of the same. Said inspector also reports that he was treated very ungentlemanly and improperly by the officers of said steamship, whilst on board, by refusing him proper accommodations, and exacting the regular fare to and from Pilatka. I, as collector, informed Captain Surtis that he must clear his vessel according to my construction of the law, &c. In reply, he made answer, "under much excitement and anger," that he was familiar with the law, and that he had no right, in his opinion, "and from what he had learned from others," to clear his vessel from this port to the port of Charleston, South Carolina; that he was right, and the collector of this district was wrong, although he would clear on account of being compelled. I cleared said steamer, according to law, and allowed her to proceed on her voyage to the port of Charleston, South Carolina. On the 20th day of May, 187, said steamer brought into this district (10) eleven slaves from the port of Charleston, South Carolina, without producing to the collector of this district a manifest, or clearance, of said slaves from said port of Charleston, South Carolina, and landed said slaves without reporting or obtaining a permit; also, having no manifest, "or permit," of cargo on board from said port of Charleston-confirming, in my opinion, a positive and wilful determination, on the part of the captain, not to regard or respect the revenue laws or collector of this district. I allowed the said steamer to proceed to Pilatka, "in this district," her place of destination. On his return to this port, on his voyage to Charleston, South Carolina, on account of a further and positive refusal to comply with my decision, and to clear his vessel for the port of Charleston, South Carolina, according to my construction of the law, I seized said steamer for violations of the revenue laws, and gave her in charge of the United States deputy marshal, and also put an inspector on board for further security of the steamer; and immediately informed the United States. marshal and United States district attorney, "who live at a considerable distance from this place," of my proceedings in the matter. Further, Thomas Surtis, commander of said steamer, has not, "in a single instance," made his appearance at the custom-house at this port since he has been in command of said steamer; and that, "from what he has said to the officers of the customs and other citizens of this place," he has, for the last three or for trips of said steamer, held the officers of the customs, also the custom-houses, of this district in utter contempt, bidding defiance to the collector of this port and the revenue laws. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JAMES G. DELL, Hon. HOWELL COBB, Secretary of the Treasury. Collector. Letter of the Hon. Howell Cobb. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 9, 1857. SIR: I acknowledge the receipt of your several letters of the 22d and 23d ultimo and 4th instant, stating the facts in regard to the seizure of the Carolina, under your construction of the provisions of the act of March 2, 1807, applied to a vessel plying as a regular packet between Charleston and Pilatka, and stopping on the route at Fernandina and Jacksonville to take in and land cargo or passengers. The Carolina, as I understand the case, was seized for a violation of the provisions of the act of March 2, 1807, prohibiting the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, and after a careful examination of the reports from yourself and, the collector at Fernandina, I am satisfied that she was rightfully seized. Under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1807, the master of a vessel of forty tons burden and upwards, departing coast wise from Charleston for Fernandina, with negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color on board, should have a certified manifest and a permit to proceed to her destination from the collector at the port of departure. On arrival at Fernandina, if the slaves are destined to be landed there, the master should present his manifest to the collector, and obtain from him a permit to land them. If they are destined to be landed at Jacksonville or Pilatka, it is the duty of the collector at Fernandina to demand the exhibition of the manifest, and satisfy himself that the persons purporting so to be transported under manifest correspond with it in number and description. If the slaves are, in part, destined to be landed at Fernandina, and the residue at Jacksonville or Pilatka, a permit should be given by the collector at Fernandina for the landing of the slaves destined for his port, and the fact of such landing, and the names of the slaves so landed, should be endorsed by him on the manifest, which should be returned to the master of the vessel. On arrival at Jacksonville, the same proceedings should be had by the master and collector at that port, respectively, as at Fernandina, in the case above supposed. The master of a vessel of the burden of forty tons or upwards, taking in slaves at Jacksonville, destined to be landed at Fernandina or Charleston, or taking slaves at Fernandina, destined to be landed at Charleston, Jacknsonville, or Pilatka, must have a certified manifest of the slaves, as prescribed in the act of 2d March, 1807, and a permit from the collector to proceed to the port of destination; and |